[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 15, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3261-H3266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENHANCING SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stauber). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with my 
colleagues to have a discussion about the Nation's number one 
antipoverty program for the elderly and the Nation's number one 
antipoverty program for children. More veterans rely on Social Security 
disability than they do on the VA.
  Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that we are addressing this to our 
colleagues. Since you are in the chair from Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, I 
want you to know that you have more than 189,000 Social Security 
recipients in your district; more than 147,000 retirees; more than 
20,000 disabled; 8,000 widows; 9,000 children.
  Here is the key, Mr. Speaker, $335 million a month comes into your 
district for those Social Security recipients. Where do they spend it? 
Right back in their district.
  Yet, it has been more than 53 years since Congress has enhanced 
Social Security. Richard Nixon was President of the United States the 
last time Social Security was enhanced.
  Democrats are bound and determined to make sure that we get something 
simple like a vote here in Congress to help out all of those people in 
your district, Mr. Speaker, as well as highlight why this is so 
important.
  Seventy million Americans rely on Social Security. Ten thousand baby 
boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. Forty thousand 
Americans rely on Social Security in and of itself as their primary 
tenet for retirement.
  It is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and 
for children. That is why our colleagues have taken to the floor today, 
so that the American people understand that what is between them and 
enhancement to this program is a vote. It is a vote on Social Security 
2100, that will extend the solvency of Social Security, but, as 
importantly, expand benefits, including making sure that the more than 
23 million people that pay taxes on Social Security no longer have to 
do that.
  What could be a better bipartisan plan than helping out every single 
individual in everyone's district and also providing for 23 million 
Americans, not the wealthiest Americans but the everyday citizens who 
work weeklong to provide for their families and pay into a system and 
haven't received an enhancement in 53 years.
  That is why   Joe Neguse is here as part of leadership that has 
strongly endorsed this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, our former Caucus chair, for 
his clarion call that he has issued year after year, month after month, 
and day after day to protect and strengthen Social Security.
  It couldn't be more important, and we couldn't be more grateful for 
his leadership and the leadership of so many of my colleagues who have 
joined us tonight on the House floor to talk to the American people 
about the ways in which House Democrats are protecting critical 
programs like Social Security and Medicare and the myriad ways in 
which, unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
doing the exact opposite.
  I will give you but one example, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the 
latter. I know you are familiar with the Republican Study Committee, 
the largest caucus within the Republican Conference. I don't know if 
the American people are familiar with it.
  Eighty percent of the Republican Conference consider themselves 
members of this committee. A hundred percent of House Republican 
leadership count themselves among the members of this committee. The 
former chairman of the Republican Study Committee is now the Speaker of 
the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Why do I bring up the Republican Study Committee? Well, it might 
interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 months ago, the 
Republican Study Committee issued a budget for 2025. Again, this is a 
committee that has 80 percent of the Republican Conference in its 
membership. This backward budget plan is incredibly revealing.
  What does it do? It upends critical programs that American families 
depend on, makes draconian cuts to Medicare and Social Security with a 
plan that increases the retirement age to 69, forcing Americans to work 
longer for less, a plan that cuts disability benefits and erodes care 
for children, making it more expensive to care for our families.
  Their plan raises Medicare costs for seniors, takes away the 
program's ability to negotiate prescription drug costs, and repeals the 
$35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket caps that House Democrats, the 
Members gathered here on the floor this evening, fought so vigorously 
to enact in the 117th Congress.
  Just to be clear, Mr. Speaker, although we are here tonight to talk 
about Social Security and Medicare and our efforts to protect, 
strengthen, and expand both of those programs, and Republican efforts 
to dismantle them, it is worth noting that this is Police Week. 
Notwithstanding the many statements made by my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle concerning their purported support of law 
enforcement, their budget tells a very different story. Why? How? I 
encourage every American to go to page 148 of the Republican Study 
Committee's budget. What you will find is clear, unambiguous, plain 
language that states that they would like to reduce funding for 
community-oriented policing services, the COPS Program, a program that 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania has fought to expand for 
years, a program that is funding the hiring of law enforcement officers 
in my district in Colorado and countless other jurisdictions across our 
great country, a program that is critical to law enforcement's 
abilities to provide for public safety in our country, and a program 
that they intend to cut.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, insofar as one were to glean essential 
observation from a review, a cursory review of their budget, it is 
simple: House Republicans are uninterested in tackling issues that 
matter to the American people.
  We will not let them cut Social Security. We won't let them cut 
Medicare. We won't let them cut law enforcement funding. That much is 
clear.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado, our esteemed leader, for his contribution. I would point out 
as well that the repeal of WEP and GPO, which directly impacts police 
officers and firefighters, is contained within our proposal. It needs a 
vote.
  Social Security has no impact on the debt or deficit and, as 
President Biden has proposed, is fully paid for by--most Americans 
don't even realize this--lifting the cap on people making over 
$400,000. Doing so allows us to enhance the program for the first time 
in 20-plus years and also makes sure that we extend the solvency of the 
program.
  Someone who knows that extraordinarily well is the gentleman from New 
Jersey, who also serves on the Social Security Subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for putting his work 
and soul on the line for the last several years.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the more than 124,000 
constituents in the Ninth District of north Jersey who rely on Social 
Security each and every month.
  Social Security is one of America's greatest success stories. After 
nearly 90 years, it still stands as a monument to decency, dignity, and 
the birthright of hardworking Americans.
  Yet, throughout its storied history, it has been under attack. Going 
back

[[Page H3262]]

to 1935, it has been the subject of attacks and lies from day one. The 
Republican Study Committee just referred to, which represents three-
quarters of the House Republicans, proposed slashing Social Security 
benefits by $718 billion.
  If I was sitting at home right now, I would be asking if that means 
me. Does that mean my benefits, which I have paid into? They are going 
to vote now and take it away? It is the only thing I live on.
  Republican leadership wants to create a so-called fiscal commission 
in our government funding bill. That is a wolf in sheep's clothing. 
Without aggressive action, Social Security lurches toward insolvency. 
Congress has a sacred responsibility to fight for its future.
  That is why I am standing with Representative Larson on his Social 
Security 2100 Act to ensure the long-term strength and solvency of 
Social Security. I will keep standing as long as we have to fight. We 
are not going home. The Social Security 2100 Act provides paid-for 
benefit enhancements while not raising taxes on middle-class families. 
It is a no-brainer.

  Our bill ends the painful 5-month disability waiting period. Imagine 
that. It would ensure Americans suffering with permanent disorders like 
Huntington's disease get the help they need without red tape or delay.
  The bill eliminates the windfall elimination provision so that 
firefighters, police, teachers, and others get the full benefits that 
they have earned.
  With the Social Security 2100 Act, we are fighting for our seniors 
who have worked their entire lives and rely on Social Security to make 
ends meet.
  I remember the first congressional election I ran in, Mr. Speaker, in 
the year 1996--which wasn't yesterday. I remember I walked into the 
hall of seniors in the spring of that year before the election actually 
was on. I thought I knew everything about Social Security, but I never 
expected to get the first question about Social Security. I was asked: 
What are you going to do about Social Security? One of our seniors 
asked that question in 1996, and here we are, 28 years later. What do 
you know?
  I will not vote for a convenient increase in the age requirement. 
They want seniors to work and drop dead so that they collect under the 
ground, I guess. They won't be above ground.
  I will not vote for cuts of Social Security in order to pay for it.
  We are fighting for working families. We must get this done for the 
American people. There are no excuses.
  Those watching, call in. Let us know what you think. This is your 
money, our money.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to 
Speaker Johnson that he has 158,000 Social Security recipients in his 
district, and in Louisiana, they receive $233 million in monthly 
benefits. Think about what that does for economic development for those 
people. Where do they spend that money?
  Linda Sanchez knows this. Linda Sanchez, who also serves on the Ways 
and Means Committee and on the subcommittee, understands how vitally 
important this is and also that more than 5 million of our Americans 
receive below-poverty-level checks from Social Security after having 
paid into the system all of their lives. The majority of them happen to 
be women, and the majority of them are women of color.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague   John 
Larson, who has been at the forefront of advocating for changes to the 
Social Security system that will ensure its longevity for the next 
generation and generations to come and will increase the benefits for 
those who currently receive Social Security.
  In contrast, the Republicans are proposing cuts to Social Security, 
and those cuts will harm millions of Americans.
  Make no mistake, cutting Social Security is a direct attack on the 
Latino population in this country. Social Security benefits are a 
significant portion of retirement income for Latinos. Forty-two percent 
of Latino couples and 59 percent of unmarried Latino individuals rely 
on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income.
  Yet, my Republican colleagues are hellbent on cutting those Social 
Security benefits. Their proposed budget would cut Social Security 
benefits for 253 million people, and Latino communities, sadly, will 
pay the price.
  Without Social Security, 47 percent of Latino retirees would be 
living in poverty. Mr. Larson frequently says that Social Security is 
the most successful antipoverty program that this country has ever 
created.
  In contrast to Republicans, who want to cut Social Security or 
increase the age at which you can begin to draw on it, Democrats are 
committed to protecting all people from living in poverty. Democrats 
want to invest in programs like Social Security so that more Americans, 
including Latinos, can afford to retire.
  One of the ingenious parts of Social Security 2100 will increase the 
cap for those who pay into the Social Security system. I frequently 
give this example. I think it is important. Many Americans don't know 
that once you earn above a certain income, you stop paying into the 
Social Security system. That means that a professional athlete, like, 
say, a professional baseball player who makes millions of dollars a 
year in income, in their first at-bat of the season, they hit that cap 
and pay no more money into Social Security the rest of the year.
  I think that we can fix Social Security, increase its longevity, and 
protect communities like the Latino communities and the women who 
depend predominantly on Social Security for their retirement income. 
All we are asking for is a vote on this legislation.
  I have no doubt that if we put that bill on the floor, it would pass 
by a large margin. Give us a vote.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for again highlighting what we are asking for: a vote. 
Imagine the United States Congress actually voting.
  Here is the deal: If you have a better idea, please bring it to the 
floor. Let's vote on it. Don't we all agree that this is something that 
all Americans need?
  Republicans in their hearts know that the American people desperately 
need this. I know Representative Jodey Arrington understands this on 
the Budget Committee. More than 50 years since we have enhanced a 
program for the people of this country is outrageous.

                              {time}  1915

  You can embrace tax cuts for billionaires as though they needed them, 
and yet, a tax cut for a person working, who still finds themselves 
working after they retire, is double taxed on their Social Security.
  There should be outrage on this floor and demanding a vote. God only 
knows that if you have got a better idea or a better program, please 
put it forward. Let's do the democratic thing, and vote on it.
  The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo) campaigned on this 
throughout his effort to be successfully elected to the United States 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).
  Mr. AMO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is deeply personal 
to me and many Americans, the sacred trust of Medicare and Social 
Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I was raised by a mom who worked double shifts as a 
nurse in Rhode Island in nursing homes. I grew up understanding how 
critical Medicare and Social Security are for seniors in the Ocean 
State.
  Now, as the Congressman for Rhode Island's First Congressional 
District, I am committed to expanding the promise of these critical 
programs.
  Democrats know how to get this done.
  Through the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, Congress authorized 
Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, capping the cost 
of insulin for seniors at just $35 a month and limiting out-of-pocket 
expenses to $2,000 a year.
  This Congress, we have committed to Congressman Larson's Social 
Security 2100 Act, a bill that would shore up benefits by ensuring the 
wealthiest Americans play by the same rules as everyone else.

[[Page H3263]]

  Yet, as I stand here today, I can't help but contrast these essential 
measures with the callous budget proposal on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Make no mistake, the Republican Study Committee's proposal is a 
backward budget. If enacted, it would cut Social Security benefits for 
more than 250 million Americans nationwide.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, the Republican budget slashes 
benefits for 74 percent of the population, forcing three out of every 
four residents to work longer for less.
  In a similar way, Republicans propose undoing the Inflation Reduction 
Act and jacking up the price of prescription drugs that seniors rely 
on.
  No one, and I mean no one, should ever have to doubt if Social 
Security and Medicare will be there for them in their retirement. That 
is why I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come 
together. Let's save Social Security together by passing Congressman 
Larson's bill.
  Let's expand, not repeal, the healthcare savings that Medicare 
seniors have seen under the Inflation Reduction Act.
  Most importantly, let's abandon this misguided idea that punishing 
seniors, pushing austerity cuts, and raising costs is somehow the 
solution to the problems we face.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't have to choose between ensuring solvency and 
safeguarding the benefits of millions of Americans. We can and we 
should do both. By having a vote on the Social Security 2100 Act, we 
will.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Rhode Island for his comments, and I wanted to say this, as well, that 
this is a bill that was constructed by more than 350 different groups 
across this great country and by Members of this body who put together 
their ideas.
  The Ways and Means Committee merely took the great ideas of our 
colleagues and put them together--ideas that have been endorsed by the 
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social 
Security Works, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the California 
Alliance for Retired Americans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Strengthen Social Security Coalition, the NAACP, and the list goes on.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel) understands this, and 
Florida probably leads the country in terms of the number of seniors 
that it has in their districts. As we pointed out before to the 
Speaker, every district receives money--$364 million a month, but it 
has been that way for more than 50-plus years. These programs need to 
be enhanced and extended, not cut.
  The provision by the Republican Study Committee, if there is nothing 
done by 2034, Social Security is cut by 20 percent. Instead, they are 
calling to raise the age now and cut Social Security by 21 percent 
today. How does that possibly make any sense?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois 
Frankel) who understands this.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for his 
leadership on this issue, and I thank Mr. Neguse for getting us here.
  I think I have joined Mr. Larson on this discussion for about 10 
years or more now.
  I want to tell you about one of my constituents. Her name is Janet 
Zweiback. She is in her eighties. She lives in Delray Beach, Florida. 
She is retired. She lost her dad at a very early age, and so, she 
watched her mom struggle with their own family bills. To help the 
family, Janet began working at the age of 17. Now, I have to get my 
math right. She has been working 50 years, so I guess that makes her--I 
don't know, someone add that up for me.
  Here is the point: Let me tell you some of the things that she has 
done over these years. She was a nurse working in a hospital, working 
countless hours taking care of patients. She moved to Florida, and she 
became a director of a skilled nursing facility. Then she worked with 
Alzheimer's patients at Alzheimer's Community Care, probably one of the 
most difficult assignments a healthcare provider could have. She also 
managed one of the crisis center hotlines.
  She retired about 8 years ago and now is one of the 66 million 
Americans, almost 200,000 seniors in my district--or as I like to say, 
seasoned adults; we are seasoned adults in my home district of Palm 
Beach County--relying on Social Security to meet their needs.

  Mr. Speaker, I liked the point Mr. Larson made that not only does 
Social Security meet the needs of so many of these seniors, but our 
seniors are great economic generators. I know where I live, if not for 
the seniors' economic activity, we would be in pretty bad shape.
  Janet told me that she fears that without Social Security she would 
have to turn to her children somewhat like her mother turned to her 
when she was young.
  Here it is. She has worked her whole life paying into Social Security 
to get benefits. She and millions of other Americans, nurses, 
schoolteachers, janitors, construction workers, they worked under the 
sacred promise that when they turned 65, they would be able to retire 
with comfort and dignity.
  Now House Republicans want to break that promise.
  Their recently proposed budget slashes Social Security benefits, 
raises the retirement age, raises Medicare costs, all while promising 
another giant tax break for their wealthy friends and large 
corporations. I will say this, and I hope we all agree, that no one who 
works their entire life should retire into poverty.
  Social Security is an earned benefit that Americans have already paid 
for with each and every one of their paychecks, and President Biden and 
House Democrats and Senators are committed to defending it from 
Republican cuts and securing it with meaningful legislation that 
requires our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share.
  I am proud to stand here with my colleagues standing up for Social 
Security, keeping it secure, and honoring our most seasoned citizens.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for her comments, and I reiterate that all we are asking for is 
a vote.
  For those citizens tuned in to C-SPAN and listening tonight, if you 
are saying, What do you mean? Why is it that you can't get a vote on 
this in the United States Congress? Good question. Call your 
Representative and ask them why they aren't voting to improve a program 
that hasn't been enhanced in more than 50 years.
  We hear from the other side all the time about what we need to do in 
terms of cuts. Imagine, this is what they would like to cut. If they 
have got a better idea, they should bring it to the floor. The way a 
democracy works is it is a debate about ideas, and then there is 
actually a vote that is cast.
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) understands this and 
understands how important the money coming into her district is 
monthly, as well.
  She understands how vitally important Social Security is to our 
economy, and not just to our retirees, but to our disabled and to their 
spouses and to children. The genius of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is 
what keeps entrepreneurialism and capitalism alive and allows people to 
take risks is because they know that there is a safety net there for 
its people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. 
Stansbury).
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, in New Mexico, we care for our elders. It 
is a part of our culture. It is a part of who we are because our elders 
are the people who birthed us, who raised us, who cared for us. They 
are our grandparents and our parents, our aunties and our uncles, our 
veterans, the people who carry our histories, our cultures, our 
languages, and our traditions.
  That is why it is so outrageous to me as a New Mexican that the House 
GOP would even consider, no less propose, to gut the critical programs 
that support our elders--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  In New Mexico, thousands of New Mexicans depend on Social Security--
our seniors, our elders, people living with disabilities. Over 450,000 
New Mexicans depend on Medicare. That is over 20 percent of our State's 
population. New Mexicans depend on these programs to access lifesaving 
healthcare, to provide for their families, to put a roof over their 
head, to put food on the table.

[[Page H3264]]

  Before Social Security, our elders were left with nothing. Before 
Medicaid and Medicare, our seniors and our low-income families could 
not access lifesaving healthcare.

                              {time}  1930

  In New Mexico, over 12 percent of our seniors are considered low-
income and living below the poverty line. Thousands are struggling to 
maintain housing, to have basic services, to have a roof over their 
head, and to put food on their table.
  Let me be clear: these programs save lives, and they have secured our 
elders for generations.
  New Mexicans and all Americans should be able to live without fear 
that politicians here in Washington are going to use their lives for 
political gain, but here we are on the House floor. The GOP is playing 
politics with the lives of our seniors proposing to gut the fundamental 
programs that have supported them for generations.
  We already know what happens when Federal programs are cut. Hospitals 
close, food insecurity rises, and critical programs disappear. That is 
why we are fighting as House Democrats and the Biden administration to 
protect our seniors, to protect these programs, and to ensure that they 
are there for generations to come.
  That is why we are fighting to protect Social Security and our 
healthcare services. It is why we took on Big Pharma 2 years ago and 
won. It is why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act which has the 
largest single expansion of Medicaid since the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act. It is why we fought to lower prescription drug 
costs. It is why we capped insulin prices for every American, and it is 
why I fought in the State legislature to end State taxes on Social 
Security benefits in New Mexico.
  I ask my colleagues: Is this how you care for your elders?
  Is this how they taught you and raised you?
  Are these the values that you were raised with?
  I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not how we treat our elders in 
New Mexico because we know they depend on these programs and because we 
know about the lifesaving care and support that are necessary. We know 
that we cannot break the promises to those who cared for us and raised 
us.
  Democrats understand, just like New Mexicans, that we must care for 
our seniors. That is why we are fighting back and working every day to 
make sure that we secure their well-being.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico for her eloquence.
  There is no one more eloquent or well-versed on this subject than the 
deaness of the House of Representatives. She is someone who has lived 
and breathed this issue and has stood up when the other side has 
referred to Social Security as an entitlement. It is not an 
entitlement. It is an earned benefit that people have paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing they have to do is look at their pay 
stub, because on it, it says FICA. That stands for Federal insurance. 
It is not an entitlement. It is a Federal Insurance Contributions.
  Whose?
  The people of the United States of America who have paid into this 
program and that Congress has not enhanced.
  This debate is not only about protecting Social Security, it is about 
expanding benefits that haven't been expanded in more than 50 years.
  I commend President Biden for having the courage and the temerity on 
this floor in the State of the Union message to speak directly to the 
American people and even those colleagues on the other side who try to 
decry the efforts of Social Security and the President's plan to make 
sure that it is solvent by lifting the cap--imagine that, Mr. Speaker--
on people making over $400,000.
  Marcy Kaptur understands this thoroughly when she talks to people in 
Ohio who are infuriated and who say: Well, wait a minute, you are 
telling me that a person making $50,000, $75,000, and $100,000 pays 
throughout the year, but somebody making over $400,000 is done paying 
in January?
  Or as Ms. Sanchez said, a baseball player after their first at bat?
  Nobody has fought harder for working people than the gentlewoman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Larson, for 
his persevering leadership on this critical issue to millions and 
millions and millions of Americans and Assistant Leader Neguse for his 
leadership. I thank them for being here this evening.
  I appreciate Mr. Larson yielding me time to highlight the importance 
of Social Security but also his tireless work to safeguard and ensure 
coverage in Social Security for all Americans who qualify for their 
earned benefits which the gentleman and every single Member who got up 
here tonight have talked about this evening.
  This is not a welfare program. This is an earned benefit.
  For nearly a century, America has made a sacred promise: Those who 
work hard throughout their lives will benefit from the fruits of their 
labor during their retirement.
  Social Security promises the safe and secure retirement for tens of 
millions of Americans during their golden years. However, we are here 
tonight because without action by this House leading, that promise is 
at risk.
  Like my colleagues, I represent probably over 150,000 retirees, the 
majority women, in northwest Ohio who want to see responsible solutions 
to protect Social Security going forward. For Ohio that includes 
eliminating the windfall penalty.
  I agree with Congressman Larson. The billionaire class must join the 
vast majority of Americans in paying their fair share into this 
critical system. Yes, it is a retirement system, but it is also an 
insurance system, it is a disability system, and it is a survivorship 
system for children.
  By making that happen, the Social Security 2100 Act championed by 
Congressman Larson will increase benefits for current and new 
beneficiaries. It will protect retirees against inflation, and it will 
repeal the windfall elimination provision once and for all.

  The Social Security 2100 Act is one of the most important bills 
before this Congress, and we must push leadership for a vote on this 
House floor as soon as possible. It impacts 68 million beneficiaries.
  Already there are 184 House cosponsors of this bill, and Speaker 
Johnson could move this bill to the floor for a vote tomorrow. 
Additionally, the Social Security Fairness Act has 319 bipartisan 
cosponsors, more than two-thirds of the Chamber, and they can't get a 
vote. It is stopped up in the leadership.
  America made a promise to workers, and Democrats are committed to 
making good on that promise.
  I am a granddaughter of immigrants who worked at the lowest wage and 
worst jobs. First fired; last hired. They simply could not have existed 
if it were not for Social Security in their retirement years. The same 
is true for our parents.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, Social Security is not just a program. It is a 
trust, a sacred trust, and that trust is intergenerational.
  I may be the only Member here this evening who was present in the 
98th Congress in April of 1983 to vote for the refinancing of Social 
Security Title 2 for the next generation. It was among the most 
critical votes I ever cast, and I remember it to this day. We stood on 
this floor, and we cheered. That vote was extremely important because 
it refinanced Social Security for the first time in a generation.
  It left some work undone, which we must repair, but it resulted from 
a brokered compromise between Republican President Ronald Reagan and 
House Speaker Tip O'Neill. They knew how to compromise.
  Now, Congress must meet its responsibility to do the same for this 
generation and those that follow.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we place in the Record 
information about that brokered compromise and also reports from U.S. 
News and World Report and other materials that attend to that 
extraordinary moment in history.
  Let's get the job done. We ask Speaker Johnson to bring up H.R. 2100 
for a vote.
  I thank Congressman Larson, Congressman Neguse, and Congressman

[[Page H3265]]

Cartwright, who are here this evening as part of this important 
messaging to the American people to say: The time is now. Bring up H.R. 
2100.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary and 
persevering leadership.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio. She mentioned Mr. Cartwright who I think epitomizes the concern 
that exists in this body, in the Congress, for people who go back home 
every week and meet with their constituents.
  The constituents of Pennsylvania are fortunate that they have someone 
who understands their needs and understands the neglect that Congress 
has shown in not addressing the number one anti-poverty program for 
elderly and for children in this country.
  As difficult as times are now, we need to make sure that minimally we 
have a vote. I do not understand the reluctance on the other side to 
bring forward legislation and actually vote on it. If you have got a 
better idea, Mr. Speaker, or even if you object to the plan, please 
tell us what it is that you object to, and what it is about Social 
Security and making sure that nobody works all their lives and pays 
into a system and then retires into poverty.
  Matt Cartwright understands that. He understands his district in 
Pennsylvania and the importance of getting this legislation done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Larson for 
yielding. I wonder if he would submit himself to a few questions and 
engage in a colloquy.
  Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. The first question I have, and we heard it tonight, 
we heard the statement, the assertion that Social Security for 
generations has been the single most important income support program 
in America and has lifted millions upon millions of seniors out of 
poverty.
  Is that true?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Yes, it is.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. We have also heard talk about this Republican Study 
Committee, which is a group of 80 percent of the Republicans here in 
the United States House of Representatives, and it is a committee that 
came up with a proposal about Social Security to raise the retirement 
age and require seniors to continue working into their senior years.
  Is that true?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Not only is it true, but I think what the 
general public needs to understand, and as you point out, Mr. 
Cartwright, the saying goes like this: Well, people are living longer, 
so, therefore, because they are living longer, what we ought to do is 
raise the age.
  What the study committee doesn't tell you is that for every year you 
raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Oh, so if you raise 
the age to 70, that is a 21 percent cut in your benefits going forward.
  How is it, from just mere logic, that if you are living longer you 
need to live on 21 percent less?
  The American people understand this, and that is why they are so 
upset, but that is why, Mr. Cartwright, we need a vote.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I have one final question for Ranking 
Member Larson.
  This idea of raising the retirement age, as the gentleman has 
explained very well, constitutes a cut in benefits for every year 
Republicans raise it. Economists have worked out how much that is going 
to cost out of the Social Security system.
  The majority's plan is to raise the retirement age and cut Social 
Security benefits by $1.5 trillion, with a t. That is what happens when 
you raise the retirement age to 69 the way Republicans want to. Is that 
right?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. That is correct.
  I guess the sad thing is that this needs a vote. It needs a debate. 
Philosophically, if you believe--and God bless, some on the other side 
do believe this is some form of socialism and that everybody ought to 
be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and be able to 
make do for themselves, that you don't need the government to do 
anything for you even when you have paid in all of your life to a 
program that has been the greatest American program to sustain our 
elderly and children.
  If you disagree with that, that is terrific, but let's then take that 
to the American people. Where do you do that? On the floor of the House 
of Representatives, where you actually will debate the issue and put 
forward your proposals versus ours.
  Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work, Mr. Cartwright?
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member Larson has that right, 
and I thank the gentleman for answering my questions.
  Tonight, I am here to speak on behalf of 191,000 people from 
northeastern Pennsylvania who depend on Social Security checks coming 
in to keep them alive. Probably over 40 percent of them look to those 
checks as the only visible means of support that they have.
  Now, the Republican Study Committee's fiscal year 2025 proposal comes 
along and talks about raising the retirement age to 69. That is fine 
if, like us, you fly a desk for a living, but if you do what so many 
Americans do, the people who paid paycheck after paycheck after 
paycheck into this sacred promise, this insurance program, FICA, if you 
do what they do--they have to lift and climb and carry and dig. These 
are the people doing manual labor, and they are expected to work well 
into their senior years, according to the Republican Study Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a breach of a promise. It is a betrayal of the 
Americans who paid into this system their entire working lives. It is 
unacceptable, and it is something that the Republicans have done year 
in and year out.
  Remember when, in 2006, Republicans were proposing privatizing the 
entire Social Security system, saying that will free up people to 
invest their money in the stock market. Then what happened to the stock 
market a couple of years later? It cratered. People would have lost 
their entire lifesavings, and there would have been no checks of any 
nature coming into their post office boxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the answer is not cutting benefits. The answer is Social 
Security 2100, Mr. Larson's bill, something that I have proudly 
supported for over 10 years now.
  This bill would increase benefits by 2 percent for all Social 
Security beneficiaries for the first time in 52 years. It would 
eliminate the WEP, which hurts policemen, firemen, prison correctional 
officers, all sorts of public employees.
  Rather than cutting benefits, Representative Larson and the 
Democratic Party have a plan to protect and enhance Social Security. It 
is a plan to put people over politics and make good on our promise to 
put American seniors first and pass Social Security 2100.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my good friend Jodey 
Arrington--and I sincerely mean that when I say that. A lot of times on 
this floor, we say ``good friend,'' but I appreciate the effort that he 
puts into his work.
  I bring these cards here this evening just to point out to our 
colleagues what it is. We made one for every Member of Congress. This 
is just a direct plea: Understand what is going on in your district 
because of Social Security.
  Citizens have every right to ask why Congress hasn't done anything to 
enhance this program, Democrats and Republicans, in more than 50 years, 
especially when we know how vital this program is to our own system of 
capitalism and entrepreneurialism and what it means to every single one 
of our communities.
  There is not a better economic development program that Texas will 
receive than the individuals in everyone's district receiving their 
Social Security checks. They are not going out and buying stock 
options. They are buying groceries. They are going to the pharmacy. 
They are going to the dry cleaners. They are paying their rent and 
mortgages. They are meeting the concerns in their communities. In doing 
so, those communities can thrive. It is long overdue--more than 50 
years.

[[Page H3266]]

  All we are asking for is a vote. If you have a better idea, in a 
democracy, the way I was brought up, you put it out there, and then, lo 
and behold, we actually have a vote--a vote that requires a debate and 
a discussion and then Congress demonstrating what it believes in by 
actually casting a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for 
a final comment.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say one of the many 
privileges I have in serving as assistant Democratic leader is having 
the opportunity to see firsthand the way in which my colleagues in the 
House Democratic Caucus are able to convert their passion and 
conviction on consequential public policy issues into action. That is 
precisely what the gentleman from Connecticut has done for the better 
part of the last decade, from when he first introduced this 
legislation.
  I am proud to support it. I am proud to support his efforts to 
protect and enhance Social Security and to do everything that we can to 
ensure that our colleagues' plans on the other side of the aisle to 
dismantle this program never see the light of day.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from 
Connecticut for yielding.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.

                          ____________________